Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Pike indeed are tasty, as long as you can navigate the 'Y' bone in cleaning it. You don't see it on menus too often. I'm convinced those walleye eating worshippers in Minnesota wouldn't know the difference in a blind folded test.

The laws of my state are such that no freshwater game fish can legally appear on a restaurant menu, and I know a lot of folks who wouldn't think of eating pike or pickerel. As for walleye, I've had it once, all gussied up at a convention dinner in Minneapolis, so one couldn't really judge what the fish tasted like. Anyway, it's just an overgrown yellow perch. I enjoy that species as well, but draw some puzzled looks from friends who consider yellow perch an inedible trash fish. (And I've learned that white perch is better.)

It is truly a rich persons' hobby. The amount of money spent on deer leases, duck hunting camps, fishing boats etc., is staggering. Most of the biggest hunters I know are people with a fair amount of money or property. Here, it's stockbrokers, realtors, lawyers, accountants and businessmen who are hunting, not the poor bubbas.

It's only expensive if one chooses to make it so. One can buy, new, a very accurate deer rifle and a shotgun for money similar to that needed for a decent set of golf clubs or a downhill ski package. One can also buy a custom rifle or high end shotgun for $5,000 a pop. Hunt in ones own state and licenses are pretty reasonable. Blowing 25K+ on an African safari or half that on a bighorn sheep hunt is different, as is a prime deer/turkey/quail lease-club membership for 2K or so per year. My biggest expense, since my firearms are long paid for and I don't have to drive to my hunting spot, comes in those years when I shoot a deer. I used to cut up my own, but now have no good spot in the house (our kitchen is not feasible for this process), so I cough up 40 cents/lb (may be more now, as I've had several empty seasons) to get it cut and wrapped.

Anyway, it's just an overgrown yellow perch. I enjoy that species as well, but draw some puzzled looks from friends who consider yellow perch an inedible trash fish. (

right you are, perch is my fish fry fish of choice (not ocean perch), if bluegill aren't available. The problem is Walleye is pretty tasty too, but it has cache for some reason, and as a result it does get a pricing premium. Put Lake Erie Walleye on the menu or at the market in the midwest and you'll easily command a hefty margin.

I love the whole way he presents it, complete with the guy's arm up when he kills the bear from behind the tree.

At least with bull fighting the matador risks being gored. What do hunters risk, practically speaking? The only incidents I ever hear of are hunters who get shot by some other dope who mistook them for a turkey or something.

The laws of my state are such that no freshwater game fish can legally appear on a restaurant menu

Why? I'm genuinely curious.

Because if gamefish are allowed to be caught and sold commercially, then the fishery will decline and the industry will die. The same is true where I live. Certain gamefish which are edible and quite tasty, are illegal to be fished commercially. Snook and Redfish are a couple of examples. The only way to legally eat one is to catch it yourself, or get it from a friend. Sailfish and Marlin are very tasty (the former if smoked), but not only is it illegal to catch and sell them commercially, but if you catch and keep one on your own (which is legal, subject to size limits), is highly discouraged by the rest of the community.

right you are, perch is my fish fry fish of choice (not ocean perch), if bluegill aren't available. The problem is Walleye is pretty tasty too, but it has cache for some reason, and as a result it does get a pricing premium. Put Lake Erie Walleye on the menu or at the market in the midwest and you'll easily command a hefty margin.

My experience is the big yellow perch get kind of muddy tasting, sort of like (but as bad as) big LMB. Small to medium size perch are delicious.

Nothing, however, beats native brook trout. They're rare enough that I only keep one if I hook it in the gullet, but oh-my-god are they tasty.

Now I am in the mood to fish. There are a handful of very skittish but huge LMB in the Harlem Meer in in NYC, in Central Park, that gorge on stocked panfish all summer. I am half tempted to head over there this weekend and see if I can't get them to hit some sort of panfish lure. It never works, but I've gotten some follows, and just seeing the fish is fun. They're very, very big for a pond that size, I'd guess 3-4 lbs.

Because if gamefish are allowed to be caught and sold commercially, then the fishery will decline and the industry will die. The same is true where I live. Certain gamefish which are edible and quite tasty, are illegal to be fished commercially.

Thanks for the explanation. My instincts are always towards continuums I guess -- I would think that limits and (high) commercial license fees would be another approach. But I can see the enforcement problem -- how do you determine if what the restaurant is selling was legally obtained? With a blanket prohibition, that's easy to do.

I heard a story a few months back, perhaps apocryphal, of a deer hunter who tracked a wounded buck through the woods only to find the buck was still very much alive and extracted some instant karma on the guy who shot him.

My dad has hunted his whole life and any time he leaves the stand to track a wounded deer, he says he has his .45 Colt 1911 drawn and ready in case he encounters any predators along the way drawn by the blood scent or unless some other large critter finds the deer first.

am half tempted to head over there this weekend and see if I can't get them to hit some sort of panfish lure.

what else have you tried? My desperation bait for bass is typically power bait (stuff that reeks)or leeches, small chubs, if you have rocks but when Bass are gettin' fat on panfish, it is really hard. Kind of like asking someone to eat after they leave a buffet.

I would think that limits and (high) commercial license fees would be another approach. But I can see the enforcement problem -- how do you determine if what the restaurant is selling was legally obtained? With a blanket prohibition, that's easy to do.

Well, I would think that with the limits necessary to ensure a healthy population of catch and release fish for the game fishermen, coupled with high fees, a commercial fishery is unviable. I doubt the public would pay what a highly regulated and taxed commercial redfish would cost, with many more cheaper and plentiful options at the market and restaurant.

what else have you tried? My desperation bait for bass is typically power bait (stuff that reeks)or leeches, small chubs, if you have rocks but when Bass are gettin' fat on panfish, it is really hard. Kind of like asking someone to eat after they leave a buffet.

Truth be told, the best way to get lucky at the Meer is to have a bass hit the panfish you're reeling in.

I've never had luck with topwater there. I even have a cool little topwater plastic rat that I bought for city fishing - I got a hit on it once in the burbs, and once at Prospect Park, but never at the Central Park lake or the meer. Powerbait (I use 7" purple worms with the flat, waggy tails) don't do #### in city water, they're much better in clear water for finesse. Even wacky rigged senkos won't really produce there - lord knows I've tried - and they're a pretty decent all-condition approach. I've gotten follows on bigger rapalas that were the neutrally bouyant kind, fished very slow, but no hits.

First off, try hitting a target from 100+ yards away, scoped rifle or not, and then we can talk about whether or not it was hard. You also have to find the animal, usually by knowing them well enough to pick out in advance where the animal likes to be. Then you have to remain hidden from an animal that has senses significantly better than your own, rustling a branch when hunting deer means its over. Taking the shot is both a) incredibly difficult, and b) the easiest part of the whole affair.

I've been on many hunts and I've never seen the behavior your describing. Either your fictionalizing what goes on in hunts for some purpose of which I won't venture a guess or your basing it on Ted Nugent television shows, in either case you're dramatically mistaken. All the hunters I know would be embarrassed to be on a hunt with the kind of person your describing. Most hunters I know are happy to have a successful hunt, happy to have the meat, and happy that their work and preparation paid off. I'd wager more people derive their "manhood" from the type of car they drive or their bear league softball team than hunting.

Look, it comes down to one thing. Either you're predisposed to think that hunters are barbarians because you personally could never imagine shooting Bambi's mom, or your not. I will tell you this, I've been to West Virginia and seen the shape those deer are in. They're better off being shot by hunters than slowly starving to death. Make all the arguments you want about it being unfair, but I'm pretty sure the deer would tell you wolves don't play fair either, and if something doesn't hunt the deer the ecosystem crashes. Hate us all you want, we're necessary

Fresh yellow perch, the small ones, breaded and pan fried are among the best eating on the planet. They are very diminished in Michigan now due to overfishing, predators, chemicals, etc. People are farm raising them; there is a big operation in Ohio. Used to be you could get a perch dinner for about the price of a McDonald's combo. Now it is $15-20. I have never been much of a fisherman, but perch and walleye fresh from the lake sure are good.

And the "targets" are NOT defenseless. They are very well-equipped by Mother Nature to evade and hide from hunters, which makes them so hard to catch and is precisely the point. Anyone who thinks you just tromp off into the woods and start blasting away at poor defenseless Bambi and then fist pump doesn't understand how hard it is to hunt. I prefer a bow. Does that change your opinion?

If I'm deer, I would prefer a quick death from a hunter rather than being nipped to death by wolves or wild dogs, or starvation.
I'm not a hunter, and probably could never be, unless there were no choice.

Go hunt all the non-endangered species you want. Post the awesome pics to Facebook. Just don't tell me you're some great Swahili warrior killing a lion with a spear. No, you shot a ####### dear at 100 yards with a high powered rifle, bro.

I prefer a bow. Does that change your opinion?

Not really, you're still using technology like your fancy rubber boots, gps, compass, micro-fleece, etc, etc, etc. Sure its more sporting with a bow, but it's still very far removed from any sort of 'state of nature" scenario. Plus when you're done you get to haul the prize home in your car, not walk 10 miles with it on your back or some ####.

I guess I don't see the line. If I club a wild boar over the head while taking my own life in my hands that is ok. But if I use a compass it's not. Meanwhile you eat steaks, pork chops and hamburgers killed on an assembly line.

I am not a Swahili warrior. Just happy when the work pays off once or twice a year. If you can't live with my grinning mug in a picture change the channel.

If you would actually read the thread you would see the figures that despite the hundreds of thousands of hunters and the advanced equipment deer populations are at all-time highs in most states. Most deer hunters do not get a deer. And your perjorative remarks about the intelligence of the hunters are offensive. Read the thread. Doctors and lawyers hunt.

It always amazes me that the kind of people who spew this non-sense will be the first to tell people their being insensitive to a culture because they "have different values."

Please, step into a courtroom with me sometime and we'll see whether I'm illiterate.

Was Hemingway illiterate?

edit: Furthermore, this thread is filled with thoughtful posts on hunting by hunters. Even some of the anti-hunting posts have been more of a "I just don't get it" flavor, and most of the rest have been civil.

Your post, on the other hand, is the least thoughtful, most hateful post in the entire thread. I'd ask you to think about that, but you've given me strong evidence to think that would just give you a headache.

I wonder if those expressing such contempt for hunters & hunting seethe with such scorn at the slaughterhouse workers & meatpackers who produce the meat they eat.

Not really. At least there's a purpose to that.

Mainly my "seething with such scorn" at hunters happens once every half-decade or so when I participate in a discussion about it. I don't really care. I was simply giving my opinion, since the subject has come up.

And killing an animal swiftly and humanely - presuming you can shoot straight - might be better than killing it after making it suffer first, but the mistake in logic comes in using the latter to justify the former. The latter does not come close to justifying it.

Plus when you're done you get to haul the prize home in your car, not walk 10 miles with it on your back or some ####

I'm not trying to get into a fight over the level of sweat equity, or thump my chest in taking an animal out of the woods (I'm not out to convert anybody or claim to be some warrior) , but after a kill of a deer, unless you do have a four wheeler, or sled, it often does involve hauling it out of the woods after a field dressing, and typically over some distance. Unless you're committing the crime of poaching, this isn't like picking the lobster out the tank at the local seafood restaurant, where you turn around and toss the carcass into the bed of the truck and drive home. You tag it, dress it, haul it out of the woods/field, take it in for processing, etc, unless you process yourself (which isn't worth the effort unless you are a local butcher too.) and you get your meat weeks later.

I'm not a vegan. I'm open to being shown how I'm being hypocritical. I think if you're killing the thing in order to eat it that's fine, and basically the only reasonable justification I can see. Yes, many people disagree.

I just don't see how pointing to something worse (e.g., slaughterhouses, although, again, at least they have a useful purpose) justifies the behavior.

Ray, I've generally left this discussion because I'm really not bothered by other people's opinion on the matter. I am curious though, how you reconcile your opinion that hunting serves no purpose when wildlife management areas (places were people hunt) strengthen deer populations and result in healthier deer. Furthermore, as has been stated upthread, many game animals dramatically overpopulate their areas, in areas of Arkansas and West Virginia (simply the two states with which I'm most familiar) if there were no hunting then deer would have wiped out several other species and then succumbed to slow starvation themselves. In many areas of the south hunting and wildlife preservation are one and the same.

I have to admit, I'm the type that roots for the bull in a bullfight or that whispered to myself "Dumbass" when the tiger nearly killed Roy. I don't believe in gratuitously abusing animals. Deriving joy and satisfaction from killing a wild animal is anathema to my code of ethics.

If you would actually read the thread you would see the figures that despite the hundreds of thousands of hunters and the advanced equipment deer populations are at all-time highs in most states.

There's an excess of deer because you hunters have killed all the large predators too.

"Only the backwater illiterate redneck yahoo kind." are posting on this thread for the non-hunting proposition.

Tim, it's a good thing you're a hunter and not one of the hunted. You just got lured in by the fakest looking decoy ever.

Ray, I've generally left this discussion because I'm really not bothered by other people's opinion on the matter. I am curious though, how you reconcile your opinion that hunting serves no purpose when wildlife management areas (places were people hunt) strengthen deer populations and result in healthier deer. Furthermore, as has been stated upthread, many game animals dramatically overpopulate their areas, in areas of Arkansas and West Virginia (simply the two states with which I'm most familiar) if there were no hunting then deer would have wiped out several other species and then succumbed to slow starvation themselves. In many areas of the south hunting and wildlife preservation are one and the same.

Is this not a purpose?

First, in the above paragraph you take credit both for solving an underpopulation problem and for solving an overpopulation problem.

Second, if I told you that the town of Parsippany NJ was overpopulated, would that be justification for hiding behind trees and sniping at people walking around town?

As to the hypocrisy charge, what does me thinking it's silly that people boast about shooting a defenseless animal with a gun after needing half a dozen gizmos and gadgets to track the thing down before you kill it have to do with hypocrisy?

What does me saying that the purpose of food justifies killing an animal but these other things do not have to do with hypocrisy? If you think I'm wrong that these other justications are reasonable justifications, that's fine, but that has nothing to do with hypocrisy, I don't think.

So I eat meat while thinking that hunting for sport is silly. How is that hypocritical?

First, in the above paragraph you take credit both for solving an underpopulation problem and for solving an overpopulation problem.

Just to get it out of the way, I think its silly to call a meat eater a hypocrite if they don't like hunting. I never called you one.

I said healthier populations, not more numerous. The deer populations in WM areas tend to live longer, healthier lives than those outside those areas.

Deer can't move out of town, you can't fix their overpopulation by stimulating their economy. When deer overpopulate, the choices are a) reduce their populations, or b) let them starve. Absent are the dozens of non-lethal options you have for people, you can't even feed them because then you'll just have even more deer.

Furthermore, while I like animals, I think comparing them to people is absurd. I would make 1,000 times the effort to help a person (assuming that person isn't Hitler) than I would an animal. I don't disregard animals, I just value humans significantly more.

Ah. Well, given the tone here you can see why I'd be offended if your comment was literal. Apologies.

There's an excess of deer because you hunters have killed all the large predators too.

First, what did we kill that creates an excess of bear?

Second, hunters didn't kill coyotes and wolves. That was mostly done by sheep and cattle farmers. If you think a cattle farmer killing wolves indiscriminately and a deer hunter are the same thing then nothing anybody can say will reach you.

No. But seeing the way he died, don't you think he sort of failed his own "grace under pressure" yardstick?

Given the original point was in jest it hardly matters, but my point was that it was silly to call one of the greatest literary minds in modern times illiterate. As I said before, apologies for thinking anybody was that dumb.

Deer can't move out of town, you can't fix their overpopulation by stimulating their economy. When deer overpopulate, the choices are a) reduce their populations, or b) let them starve.

Let's be serious: Is your goal in hunting to fix an overpopulation problem? If not, then why are you citing this?

Furthermore, while I like animals, I think comparing them to people is absurd. I would make 1,000 times the effort to help a person (assuming that person isn't Hitler) than I would an animal. I don't disregard animals, I just value humans significantly more.

I agree with the thrust of this, which is why I've not advocated for hunters to be punished, as I would if they were shooting people.

I just don't think this justifies it.

Nor does something like this, said by Tim upthread:

And the "targets" are NOT defenseless. They are very well-equipped by Mother Nature to evade and hide from hunters, which makes them so hard to catch and is precisely the point.

The guys in slaughterhouses, whose prey you don't give a flying #### about, employ some seriously ruthless tools and technology against defenseless penned animals with no escape. This, after an existence in a factory farm with conditions worse than a slave ship. But that doesn't bother you, because you have paid people to do the dirty work of carnivorism for you. You seem to think that makes you better than those that do it for themselves.

If you weren't such a disagreeable ass, I'd invite you for deer season. Days or weeks of sometimes arduous scouting & tracking, followed by, if you're lucky, a stalk to 20-30 yards up to a very wary & fast animal. It's a lot of work with a lot of failed attempts. If you're succesful, then you confront the guts & gore up close by field dressing & skinning. Then, finally, comes the immense satisfaction of eating a delicious meal that you harvested from step 1. A meal that begain in your binoculars and ended at the table with loved ones (cuz venison is too delicious to share with just anyone).

It would teach you a thing or two, if you were open to learning. You aren't.

If you think a cattle farmer killing wolves indiscriminately and a deer hunter are the same thing then nothing anybody can say will reach you.

They're both hunters, aren't they? They might be hunting for different reasons but they're still hunting.

And hunters can be unbelievably irresponsible. The passenger pigeon was driven extinct by gratuitous and excess hunting. They use lead shot which contaminates aquifers and poisons wildlife. The California condor was nearly driven extinct by a combination of powerline accidents, killing by hunters and poisoning by lead shot left in the environment by hunters. Powerlines serve a useful purpose. Shooting and poisoning condors does not.

The idea that hunters are environmental philanthropists is a spurious one. Most only care about the environment to the extent it supports the game animals they like to hunt. Have hunters offered their voice to global warming mitigation? Not that I can see. And the funds raised by hunters for wildlife management all too often is used to support the overpopulation of game species so hunters will have more animals to kill. Wildlife manager Dr. Gary Alt had to start wearing a bulletproof vest to work because he received so many death threats after recommending the PA deer population be culled by 2/3's.

There is a marked difference between the market hunting of a century ago that killed the passenger pigeon off and modern, legal, regulated game hunting. The former was deeply destructive, the latter has never led to any extinction and , as has been cited, is a tool (A tool, not THE tool) in wildlife population management.

And if you think hunters are not environmentalists, then you don't know any.

I agree with the thrust of this, which is why I've not advocated for hunters to be punished, as I would if they were shooting people.

I just don't think this justifies it.

In all honesty, I don't think individuals hunt because of overpopulation, but hunting as an institution owes part of its existence to such. I think if hunting weren't doing some good then I couldn't justify it to myself, and I think there's enough people like me who hunt that anti-hunting movements would be much more successful if we weren't around. The huge organizations that manage wildlife exist almost entirely to manage populations, so there's that as well.

I really wasn't trying to change your mind, I was simply trying to distill if your opposition was really intellectually or morally based. Some of your comments led me to believe you were taking an intellectual stand, I now see you aren't, and concede that you're morality is different than mine. In no way does it offend me that other people have different moral values.

And if you think hunters are not environmentalists, then you don't know any.

They're environmentalists out of self-interest only. Once the environmental question migrates away from that interest, they don't care. That's not really environmentalism in the true sense. It runs more along the lines of favorite game species cultivation and management.

They're both hunters, aren't they? They might be hunting for different reasons but they're still hunting.

And hunters can be unbelievably irresponsible. The passenger pigeon was driven extinct by gratuitous and excess hunting. They use lead shot which contaminates aquifers and poisons wildlife. The California condor was nearly driven extinct by a combination of powerline accidents, killing by hunters and poisoning by lead shot left in the environment by hunters. Powerlines serve a useful purpose. Shooting and poisoning condors does not.

The idea that hunters are environmental philanthropists is a spurious one. Most only care about the environment to the extent it supports the game animals they like to hunt. Have hunters offered their voice to global warming mitigation? Not that I can see. And the funds raised by hunters for wildlife management all too often is used to support the overpopulation of game species so hunters will have more animals to kill. Wildlife manager Dr. Gary Alt had to start wearing a bulletproof vest to work because he received so many death threats after recommending the PA deer population be culled by 2/3's.

No, farmers don't have licenses and they're unregulated. They kill entirely for profit.

Lead shot's been illegal for a good while now, and as has been noted regulated hunting is a far cry from what your accusing the current generation of. Your arguing against a "hunting" culture that is effectively extinct except in cases were people behave illegally, are generally caught, and punished swiftly by the law.

I've never understood the go all in or go home concept with regards to things like the environment. I have to care about everything to care about anything? That's spurious.

As to the over-underpopulation allegation, you get a very incomplete picture simply by looking at population numbers. Unmanaged deer are less healthy and live shorter more stressful lives than deer in managed areas, the fact that managed areas can carry more healthy deer than unmanaged ones is a point for hunters, not against us.

I'll jump in. Because some people are crazy? Before you go too far down that rabbit hole, you should probably consider that a not insignificant number of those threats were probably from Greenpeace type extremists who would react violently to the killing of any animal.

So who among our contributors eschews a leather belt because of the cruelty it imposes on poor defenseless animals? PETA was just as likely to threaten Alt as was a hunter. Crazies know no particular political allegiance.

Sure, some hunters are irresponsible and do bad and/or stupid things. After all they are just people. If hunters were really just bloodthirsty thugs they would be using assault rifles to bag as many as they can. The vast majority, as with any other human endeavour, obey the law, and either get their limit or none at all because it's too damn hard.

Appealing to what hunters did before modern conservation measures were understood, appreciated and adopted is really pointless. Animals have been hunted to extinction throughout history; it is just in this era that we have got it right and you are still piling on.

Why does that matter? I've never understood this. Maybe it was a rationale in the past, when eating animal meat was necessary for a healthy diet. Or in some cases, to avoid starving. But it doesn't anymore, at least not for the people posting here. It is clearly possible to survive - hell, it's probably healthier - on a vegetarian diet. So the only reason to eat meat is because you enjoy it more than soy protein or whateverthehellelse vegetarians eat. I dont see why the pleasure sought and experienced by Steak-Eater is more legitimate than the pleasure of Deer-Killer, except insofar as there are some hypocritical social mores that date from a time when people has to kill to survive.

I have to admit, I'm the type that roots for the bull in a bullfight or that whispered to myself "Dumbass" when the tiger nearly killed Roy. I don't believe in gratuitously abusing animals.

As an established hunter/fisherman in this thread, I can support this. I'm very much in this camp. I own no pets, in part because they are still animals and I don't want them in my home. (This is also because I would be a lousy pet owner). You play with animals and if they attack you, that's part of the deal. Just as I prepare for my travels while hunting being prepared for these types of encounters is part of the deal. I fully recognize that if I ever hunt again in the Big Horns I may be stalked by a mountain lion. I'm in the food chain too, and that's their dominion.

I'm also the guy who lectures people when I'm in certain national parks and they are the idiots who simply have to get a picture of that bison from five feet away, instead of staying in their car when the beast is walking on its land. The amount of stupid behavior by city slickers (of which I am one) is overwhelming in these places. In speaking to my elders who have spent far more hours in these places than I, things have improved, but I've seen three bison gore people (two leading to obvious injury) in about 50 lifetime visits to Yellowstone.

Before you go too far down that rabbit hole, you should probably consider that a not insignificant number of those threats were probably from Greenpeace type extremists who would react violently to the killing of any animal.

If by backpacking you include bedtime, you may have meant ultimately camping, then I would have negative enjoyment. I hate camping. Once it is time for bed, I'd rather sleep in my Outback.

I do enjoy those other activities (hiking, canoeing, etc.) but rather have accommodations even if sparse. Where I've duck hunted for years, we had a 'shack' basically a few bunks, a wood stove, an outhouse and it did have electricity. That's plenty, and it sure beats a tent and sleeping bag. Hunting is seasonal anyways, we're talking a 10 day gun season for deer in WI, I might do 6 days tops for an entire year now with two little girls at home. Bow hunting is a lot longer season, and birds offer more dates, but the most days I've hunted in one year is 12-14 days. I'm definitely a lightweight hunter compared to some of my colleagues. I've played more golf in a month, easily.

A most interesting question. I'll probably have a clearer & better nuanced answer tomorrow after thinking it over, but off the cuff, here goes:

Though they are both outdoor activities, they are (to me) different. Points in random, stream of thought order:

-Hunting for me is mainly solitary. Not completely so, but mainly. I love dawn & dusk hunts (and in CA, that's most of it) to see, hear, smell & feel the woods waking up and going to sleep.

-Hunting also feeds a very primal love of wild food. I just love the taste of game. Just as grass fed beef is better than feed lot variety, wild game is better tatsing than store-bought, but by orders of magnitude. I also really enjoy the self made aspect of it, ie that I took it from binoculars to the table all myself. As a Certified Bay Area Food Snob, This is about the pinnacle of food pleasure

Camping & backpacking, though, are more about fellowship to me:

-My #1 favorite part of camping is taking my girls into the woods & showing them new things. Teaching them camp skills, new constellations, etc is a great thing.

-Camping with friends is a great experience too. We hike in the day, sip bourbon by the fire at night, lots of fun.

Hunting is solitary and cerebral, camping/backpacking is communal & social. Both are great fun. An interesting and thought-provoking question.

I don't believe in gratuitously abusing animals. Deriving joy and satisfaction from killing a wild animal is anathema to my code of ethics.

This is my natural impulse regarding hunting. I don't think I would eat meat (in a modern society) if I had to kill it myself; I had a very difficult time dealing with the idea that I had killed a mouse in my home with a trap.

I don't have any issue with people hunting for food, defense, or population control. I'd happily eat freshly-killed game at someone's table.

I just can't shake the feeling that there's something ugly about killing anything for sport, even something as lowly as a fly. I have a couple of friends that hunt on occasion. I don't think they're evil but it does make me uncomfortable. If you hunt for sport, I don't think less of you as a person, but I feel disconnected from you, a person who experiences pleasure at something that would fill me with sadness and guilt.

Then again, I also feel guilty about eating meat, but not so guilty that I'm not eating it right now. Part of me wishes that I were enough of a better person not to eat meat, especially since I know quite well the suffering that many of these animals go through before ending up on my plate. But it really is incredibly delicious.

Appealing to what hunters did before modern conservation measures were understood, appreciated and adopted is really pointless. Animals have been hunted to extinction throughout history; it is just in this era that we have got it right and you are still piling on.

It was well understood then that what hunters were doing was irresponsible, but they just went ahead and did it anyway, well...because. And if you mean by "getting it right", penalizing the crap out of hunters that act irresponsibly, then you might be right. But that just supports my point. Hunters aren't acting responsibly because it's the right thing to do, they are doing it because if they don't, they'll go to jail or pay a draconian fine.

And have we really "gotten it right" yet? The rhino is being hunted to extinction for its horn. The great white shark is being hunted to extinction for its fin or because its a cool thing to do to kill a great white. The tiger is on the verge of extinction, and poaching is a large part of that.

I love the woods too. And the intertidal pools. And the mountains. And the rivers and ponds. There are so many things to see and smell and hear and wonder about.

Getting back to TraderDave's accusation that I don't know any hunters. I used to have a large property in the upper south that was rural in character and had a significant stream running through it. My property back up, through a wooded floodplain, to a gun club. Many of my neighbors were hunters, and they hunted locally. They thought it was their right to hunt on my property. I was working in the yard one weekend in the fall and all of a sudden I heard a rustle and this huge buck came running right up into my backyard from the stream and took off towards the rear of my property. Following shortly were a pack of hunting beagles. One of the beagles was exhausted and just sat next to my outdoor shed and watched me mow the lawn. I went over to check him out and his legs were all torn up from running through the underbrush. I called the number that was on his collar and asked to owner to come over and pick him up. After an hr or so, I called again. Finally, a pickup truck with a dog cage in the flatbed pulled in and a guy who could only be described as a "Bubba" got out and gathered the dog up and put him in the truck. I tried talking to him but he was clearly pissed that I interrupted his hunt to have to come and get the dog.

After thinking about it awhile though, I began to think "What nerve. Who does this guy think he is to assume he has the right to run his dogs through my property and kill my deer?" I suppose it is customary for landowners in that area to allow such a thing but still, if a homeowner like me objects, then that objection should be respected. He should have apologized to me and asked permission before running his dogs on my land that way.

The tiger is on the verge of extinction, and poaching is a large part of that

Well, but nobody's poaching tigers in New Jersey. It's a very broad brush to see controlled deer-hunting and rampant tiger-poaching as the same thing, or even the same impulse. It's like saying you can't stand watching bat-and-ball sports anymore since the Marlins held their last fire sale :)

I am a tide pool freak and have been since I was 9 and my fourth grade class went to some tidal pools on a field trip. There's a great biography of Ed Ricketts (Doc Ricketts in Steinbeck's novels) that I'd recommend for anyone who loves tidal pools. Ricketts is the patron saint of tidal pool science and a really interesting guy outside of his portrayal by Steinbeck. One of my most treasured books is a book on tidal pools that Ricketts wrote that I managed to find on ebay, the edition with a forward by Steinbeck.

When I was a child, I used to vacation by the ocean and there was an acre sized granite island just offshore that could be reached by walking along a jetty. It was a popular place for scuba divers to go looking for lobsters. But what I really dug were the numerous small tidal pools sunk into the rock surface. Each one seemed to have its own microecology. Most of the larger ones had minnows swimming around in them. The ones that were fed daily with fresh seawater splashed in from the waves had a red algae that coated the pool below the waterline. The ones that were fed mostly with rainwater had a green seaweed that attached itself to the rock and the minnows and crustaceans would feed on that. Every now and then, a lobster or large crab would get trapped in one of them and have to wait for high tide to come back to get back into the ocean. There were seagulls and cormorants everywhere. It was cool place for an amateur naturalist to scout around, which nearly every young boy seems to be.

Getting back to Ricketts, the Monterrey aquarium is the greatest aquarium in this or any other country. There is no argument about this.

Mind you, I'm entirely with Shooty and Publius on the outdoor experience, I don't like camping, but anywhere I can hike within a day's walk of a roof and a bed is for me. My last such trip was to the Muleshoe NWR in the Texas Panhandle, last month, to see the migratory sandhill cranes that roost there by the thousands. An awesome and wholly unexpected ecosystem out on the prairie amid thousands of acres of cottonfields. Cranes were hunted on commercial scales in the 19th century for their feathers, but they survived in great numbers into the late 20th thanks to conservation efforts. Now the much greater threat is loss of wetland habitat, a far more insidious threat than the rare (and quite illegal) poacher.

I sure was. In my early boyhood, in Hayward, California, my world was Garin Park (a small regional park on top of a hill where I could catch lizards, garter snakes and salamanders) and a drainage ditch that ran along the railroad and BART track behind our house where there were crawdads and a lot of frogs. Those places seemed immense at the time but now they seem tiny and, with respect to the ditch, kind of gross. Moving to Salinas and having access the that stretch of coastline near Monterey plus places like The Pinnacles was a revelation.

last month, to see the migratory sandhill cranes that roost there by the thousands.

I'm jealous. I really want to get to the Plains states to see some of the migrations but I'm handcuffed by limited vacation time. I was able to see the cranes doing their mating dance the last time I went home to California. There are spots in the Central Valley where they congregate in good numbers in the winter. In a couple of weeks I'm finally getting to the Salton Sea to check out some of the wildlife there and hopefully get some decent pictures.

As to the hypocrisy charge, what does me thinking it's silly that people boast about shooting a defenseless animal with a gun after needing half a dozen gizmos and gadgets to track the thing down before you kill it have to do with hypocrisy?

Gizmos and gadgets - people have used rifles for centuries, compasses for millenia, bows and arrows for many millenia. Does that mean that only using one's own claws and teeth for the kill is worthy? Another post expressed the opinion that taking satisfaction from killing an animal was anathema. Where does one draw the line? I take satisfaction in a well-seasoned woodpile that allows me to heat the house without adding more fossil-fuel CO2 to the atmosphere, but I killed trees to make it happen. I love carrots from my garden, especially uncooked, which means I'm eating them while they're still living. I enjoy wild game above all other meats, and above most other foods, and thus take satisfaction whenever I take a deer. Hunters who are into "chest thumping" over their kills are being silly, but non-hunters who consider themselves morally superior to anyone who hunts can be unsufferable as well. One of my favorite books ("The Year-Long Day'", a Svalbard adventure) includes the comment, "Life eats, and killing is part of the meal."

The whitetail deer has a greater potential for adversely affecting ecosystems than any other North American animal, though those 19-century bison herds might've come close. The Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry manages 2 million acres of state land there, and they nearly failed to earn certification for sustainable forest management simply because excessive deer in that state were changing the forest ecosystem by their preferential browsing of certain tree species. Humans have been hunting deer in this country since the glaciers retreated, and the best (though still unavoidably sketchy) records suggest that native Americans at the time of contact with European invaders took about the same number of whitetails as sport hunters kill today. Something is going to kill deer, whether it be firearms, fenders, or food shortages, and when it's the latter two, damage (to property, to ecosystems) is often part of the process.

Deer population control methods other than sport hunting have been proposed - birth control in food piles (but hugely expensive, and lots of animals other than the target species eat what's available), moving deer to areas having few (even more expensive, with significant capture/transport mortality, and where are the places with few deer?), and professional sharpshooters (costly, but sometimes justified, as on Maine's Monhegan Island with 200 critters on 800 acres and a huge population fo deer ticks.) I'm certainly biased, but IMO, sport hunting is the preferable option in dealing with the whitetail. Other folks obviously think otherwise, which is fine, but either side trying to claim some ethical superiority over the other (and only a few posts in this thread have gone there) seems of little merit.

Just to throw in a factoid that may or may not have been mentioned by now: According to the International Hunter Education Association, a bit over 1,000 North American hunters are accidentally shot each year, with slightly under 100 fatalities.

Just to throw in a factoid that may or may not have been mentioned by now: According to the International Hunter Education Association, a bit over 1,000 North American hunters are accidentally shot each year, with slightly under 100 fatalities.

Just to throw in a factoid that may or may not have been mentioned by now: According to the International Hunter Education Association, a bit over 1,000 North American hunters are accidentally shot each year, with slightly under 100 fatalities.

Paying others to slaughter miserable factory farmed animals while you turn your noses up at people who take wild game themselves is even uglier.

I pay no one to slaughter anything.

And one bad behavior doesn't justify another.

Again, I'm not looking to do anything to you -- not take away your guns, not restrict the type of guns you use, not stop you from hunting and killing. What have I done? Expressed displeasure with what you're doing. Big whoop, learn to deal.

Getting back to TraderDave's accusation that I don't know any hunters. I used to have a large property in the upper south that was rural in character and had a significant stream running through it. My property back up, through a wooded floodplain, to a gun club. Many of my neighbors were hunters, and they hunted locally. They thought it was their right to hunt on my property. I was working in the yard one weekend in the fall and all of a sudden I heard a rustle and this huge buck came running right up into my backyard from the stream and took off towards the rear of my property. Following shortly were a pack of hunting beagles. One of the beagles was exhausted and just sat next to my outdoor shed and watched me mow the lawn. I went over to check him out and his legs were all torn up from running through the underbrush. I called the number that was on his collar and asked to owner to come over and pick him up. After an hr or so, I called again. Finally, a pickup truck with a dog cage in the flatbed pulled in and a guy who could only be described as a "Bubba" got out and gathered the dog up and put him in the truck. I tried talking to him but he was clearly pissed that I interrupted his hunt to have to come and get the dog.

After thinking about it awhile though, I began to think "What nerve. Who does this guy think he is to assume he has the right to run his dogs through my property and kill my deer?" I suppose it is customary for landowners in that area to allow such a thing but still, if a homeowner like me objects, then that objection should be respected. He should have apologized to me and asked permission before running his dogs on my land that way.

Ah, the ever-popular sample size of "ONE" hunter, whom you clearly don't know. Trespassing on your land is clearly out of line, but that is aberrant behavior that happens among a tiny minority of hunters. Knowing far more hunters than you, I feel qualified to make that statement, btw.

Just to throw in a factoid that may or may not have been mentioned by now: According to the International Hunter Education Association, a bit over 1,000 North American hunters are accidentally shot each year, with slightly under 100 fatalities.

Some equally relevant (or equally irrelevant) factoids:
Over the past 20 years, Maine has averaged slightly under one hunting fatality per year among about 180,000 licensed hunters, and about 2 moose-collision human fatalities per year. Also 5-6 snowmobile fatals and probably twice that in boating-related drownings.

Deer aren't moose (though zoologically, moose are deer), but I once read that human fatalitiies average about 1 per 5,000 deer/vehicle collisions. Last I heard, Pennsylvania averaged somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 such collisions annually, and nationwide it must be well into the hundreds of thousands.